On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 09 Jan 2013, at 12:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:59, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>>>>
>>>> Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. The modern notion of God comes with the platonist, and
>>> was
>>> almost a synonym with "truth". There was an implicit, but reasonable
>>> assumption, that humans search truth. Atheism has arised by reaction to
>>> *imposed* notion of God, and, unfortunately, throws the "theology" baby
>>> with
>>> the clerical bath water.
>>> Before, God was a scientific hypothesis, more or less equivalent with the
>>> idea that there is a reality which transcend us.
>>
>>
>> Agreed but your next statement is too restrictive in my opinion unless
>> you mean experimental proof. For sure there is arithmetic proof that
>> goes beyond experimental proof in scope.
>
>
> I prefer to keep the term "proof" in the strong logician's sense (formal or
> informal).
> I would talk only on experimental *evidence*.
>
> You are right that proof usually can go much farer than any evidence. We
> know that there is a prime number bigger than 10^10000, but have no
> experimental evidences at all for that!
>
> But I am saying something stronger: that many arithmetical truth are just
> beyond proof (not just beyond experimental evidence). The simplest one is
> the consistency of PA, which is true but impossible to be proven by PA. Note
> that by the *completeness theorem* (Gödel 1930), consistency is equivalent
> with "having a model", or having a (mathematical) reality satisfying the
> axioms. Self-consistency is already an assertion, made by some machine, that
> there is a transcendental (with respect to that machine) reality.

Agreed, and I hope that truth is true .
Richard

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Richard
>>
>>> By definition it cannot be
>>> proved to exist, not even named. Exactly like "arithmetical truth" has to
>>> appear for any sound machine.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>>>> 1/8/2013
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>>>> ----- Receiving the following content -----
>>>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>>> Receiver: everything-list
>>>> Time: 2013-01-08, 09:52:18
>>>> Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07 Jan 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Consider God, a word for Mind
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, I have a mind therefore I am God.
>>>>
>>>> I said it before I'll say it again, for some strange reason that is
>>>> unknown to me many people are willing to abandon the idea of God but not
>>>> the
>>>> word G-O-D. Those letters and in that sequence (DOG just will not do)
>>>> MUST
>>>> be preserved and it doesn't matter what it means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GOD means the reality in which you believe. It is, imo, a bit more
>>>> neutral
>>>> than "Universe", which is the third Aristotelian God, and which does not
>>>> belong to what constitutes the "being" for the Platonist. Since about
>>>> 1500
>>>> years, the term "God" has acquired many christian cultural colors, but
>>>> there
>>>> is no reason to identify God with the God-father of Christian "theory".
>>>> God
>>>> has no name, in many theologies, so all terms to designate it can only
>>>> be a
>>>> fuzzy pointer. Tao is not bad, as it has many similar qualities than the
>>>> abramanic god, but with a less "person" feature. I use the term God to
>>>> designate whatever transcend us and is responsible for our existence.
>>>> With
>>>> comp, I am open to the idea that (arithmetical) truth can play that
>>>> role,
>>>> and this is exploited in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
>>>> 'neoplatonism'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bruno
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to